Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT Review of draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-04

Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu> Thu, 07 January 2021 05:12 UTC

Return-Path: <loa@pi.nu>
X-Original-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mpls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5B1E3A02BB; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:12:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.158
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.158 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Xva3tCiYViL; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:12:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pipi.pi.nu (pipi.pi.nu [83.168.239.141]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD5393A07C8; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 21:12:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.11] (unknown [124.104.17.232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: loa@pi.nu) by pipi.pi.nu (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1AAA8328256; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:12:38 +0100 (CET)
To: Mach Chen <mach.chen@huawei.com>, Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>, "Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi)" <rgandhi=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, mpls <mpls@ietf.org>, "draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr@ietf.org" <draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr@ietf.org>, mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
References: <CAA=duU21PHQoJP0cEX6o1K=EwUFqeH19YvcDPNJVKE9c2szS6w@mail.gmail.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2980ACEB1@dggeml530-mbs.china.huawei.com> <DM6PR11MB3115122E45D5D9734E2A7023BFD20@DM6PR11MB3115.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <E683497C-449B-4756-90CA-F01A8D7983E8@gmail.com> <bb8796b9-b4c9-1c04-c348-3a8624ddecaa@pi.nu> <CA+RyBmUAvbUJ1xmvZUspiu3kJbuqOhFs=CguM_PFOpq=UjnERw@mail.gmail.com> <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2980D52FE@dggeml510-mbs.china.huawei.com>
From: Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
Message-ID: <8813ba4d-76b7-ba83-c396-d6795de074b8@pi.nu>
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 13:12:35 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <F73A3CB31E8BE34FA1BBE3C8F0CB2AE2980D52FE@dggeml510-mbs.china.huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/mpls/ZJz2pJSLVEFibQ6A8KI0OewBjLM>
Subject: Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT Review of draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-04
X-BeenThere: mpls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multi-Protocol Label Switching WG <mpls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/mpls/>
List-Post: <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>, <mailto:mpls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 05:12:59 -0000

Maach,

If it is a requirement from iOAM to do hop by hop processing, then the 
SPL/eSPL is a very blunt tool, there is is always a risk that the (e)SPL 
label that indicate the special behavior is below the maximum stack 
depth that can be scanned.

Right?

If we create a FEC that says "this packet has a hop by hop processing 
requirement, go find the ACH-header immediately after the label stack to 
see what you need to do." That would not solve the immediate problem but 
also be useful for the future.

/Loa


On 07/01/2021 11:50, Mach Chen wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> IMHO, I think the key issue is that there is no hop-by-hop option in 
> MPLS, but the iOAM requires that.
> 
> There are three potential options:
> 
> 1)Scan the stack and find the (e)SPL label that indicate the special 
> behavior;
> 
> 2)Introduce an (e)SPL and always keep it on the top of the label stack;
> 
> 3)Use the way as Stewart suggested, a new FEC, just like the SFL;
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Mach
> 
> *From:*Greg Mirsky [mailto:gregimirsky@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 7, 2021 11:30 AM
> *To:* Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu>
> *Cc:* Stewart Bryant <stewart.bryant@gmail.com>; Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) 
> <rgandhi=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>; mpls <mpls@ietf.org>; 
> draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr@ietf.org; mpls-chairs <mpls-chairs@ietf.org>
> *Subject:* Re: [mpls] MPLS-RT Review of draft-gandhi-mpls-ioam-sr-04
> 
> Hi Loa, et al.,
> 
> RFC 8169 uses TTL expiration to achieve processing at each RTM-capable 
> node. That approach creates a state in transient nodes and may not fit 
> with the "no state" paradigm of the Segment Routing.
> 
> And I've got a question. AFAIK, the presence of ACH in an MPLS LSP is 
> indicated by GAL. Is there an intention to introduce another (E)SPL for 
> that?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Greg
> 
> On Wed, Jan 6, 2021 at 7:20 PM Loa Andersson <loa@pi.nu 
> <mailto:loa@pi.nu>> wrote:
> 
>     Stewart,
> 
>     If we want to make sure that packets are processed at evey node, is the
>     new FEC complementary to the ACH-header or an alternative?
> 
>     /Loa
> 
>     On 05/01/2021 00:30, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>     > 
>     > 
>     >> On 4 Jan 2021, at 14:38, Rakesh Gandhi (rgandhi) 
>     >> <rgandhi=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
>     >> <mailto:rgandhi <mailto:rgandhi>=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org
>     <mailto:40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>>> wrote:
>     >>
>     >> <RG> Yes, this is similar to the entropy label where a mid-point node 
>     >> needs to scan the label stack to find the indicator label. We can add 
>     >> some text to clarify this. There is already an optimization to use a 
>     >> different indicator label for HbH compared to E2E case to 
>     >> unnecessarily avoid parsing the IOAM data fields.
>     > 
>     > The EL is entirely optional to process. It is no more than a hint to use 
>     > in ECMP and there is no architectural requirement to find it to operate 
>     > correctly.
>     > 
>     > If iOAM is purely a option then you could scan the stack and hope that 
>     > you can reach down far enough to find it. Though there is a fight to see 
>     > who gets to be the lowest label in range of the forwarding parser.
>     > 
>     > If you want to be sure that iOAM is processed HxH then you really need 
>     > to run it on a new FEC with that behaviour built into the FEC. That 
>     > would be the architected way of doing this in MPLS.
>     > 
>     > - Stewart
>     > 
>     > 
>     > 
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > mpls mailing list
>     > mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
>     > 
> 
>     -- 
> 
>     Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu <mailto:loa@pi.nu>
>     Senior MPLS Expert loa.pi.nu@gmail.com <mailto:loa.pi.nu@gmail.com>
>     Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     mpls mailing list
>     mpls@ietf.org <mailto:mpls@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls>
> 

-- 

Loa Andersson                        email: loa@pi.nu
Senior MPLS Expert                          loa.pi.nu@gmail.com
Bronze Dragon Consulting             phone: +46 739 81 21 64